Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of telephone-derived Clinical Dementia Rating scores: A comparative analysis with in-person assessments.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Assfaw Araya Dimtsu, Xiong Chengjie, Moulder Krista L, Morris John C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale typically is administered in person, but use of telephone-based, informant-only assessments increased during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The correspondence of informant-only assessments with in-person ratings remains unclear.
METHODS: We analyzed 1,140 paired in-person and telephone assessments from the Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Memory and Aging Project conducted within 12 months. Agreement for global CDR and CDR Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) was examined using kappa statistics, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland-Altman methods; classification performance of telephone global CDR score ≥ 0.5 was assessed.
RESULTS: Agreement for the global CDR was moderate (κ = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.47-0.59). CDR-SB demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.73). Telephone CDR-SB scores averaged 0.40 points higher than in-person scores, with wide limits of agreement. Sensitivity was 64.2% and specificity 91.9%.
DISCUSSION: Telephone CDR-SB shows moderate concordance with in-person CDR-SB but shows consistent score inflation, which may limit clinical staging utility.
METHODS: We analyzed 1,140 paired in-person and telephone assessments from the Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Memory and Aging Project conducted within 12 months. Agreement for global CDR and CDR Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) was examined using kappa statistics, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland-Altman methods; classification performance of telephone global CDR score ≥ 0.5 was assessed.
RESULTS: Agreement for the global CDR was moderate (κ = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.47-0.59). CDR-SB demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.73). Telephone CDR-SB scores averaged 0.40 points higher than in-person scores, with wide limits of agreement. Sensitivity was 64.2% and specificity 91.9%.
DISCUSSION: Telephone CDR-SB shows moderate concordance with in-person CDR-SB but shows consistent score inflation, which may limit clinical staging utility.